Why does this community, which is privacy oriented, use Discord rather than Matrix?
Ferk @ Ferk @lemmy.ml Posts 0Comments 290Joined 4 yr. ago
Ferk @ Ferk @lemmy.ml
Posts
0
Comments
290
Joined
4 yr. ago
But that's cyclic reasoning. Nothing that you need/want will be on matrix if you (and everyone else) does not think it's worth to make what you need/want be in matrix..
I don't need EVERYTHING to be in Matrix, just the things I'm interested in. So I'm happy when I see a push to have those specific things there. This is the same argument as to why I don't use Reddit anymore, despite Lemmy/Kbin having only a fraction of the content.
It also helps the fact that Matrix is very flexible when it comes to mirroring/proxying other protocols. I can easily access IRC communities from Matrix, for example. The integration in that direction is nicer than requiring discord channels to add bots that parrot an IRC chat.
There are plans for Matrix to move to P2P someday... I wonder what would happen in that case. Or if we just used https://tox.chat/
Would the regulation apply at all when it's just a protocol used between the users, with no intermediary or central server offering the service?
Why not just go for Tox or some other P2P serverless communication system? They can't ban / go after a system that has no central servers, can they?
I think part of the reason why the long extension is often preferred is because it's much clearer and it's guaranteed to be supported and decompressed by the respective tools. Even when they don't suppot tar archives, they'll just give you the uncompressed tar in that case.
It's also very common to do that with other extensions (not just .tar) when compressing big files. For example, when archiving logs they'll often be stored as .log.gz, which makes it automatically clear that it's a log file directly compressed with gzip and meant to be examined with tools like zcat and zless to view it.
And in cases like that you really need it to be clear on what data does the gzip stores, since it does not keep metadata about the file so you might not be able to get back the original name/extension of the file if you rename the gz file.
In fact, it’s not unlikely that the behavioural data of people who pay to opt out of being spammed with ads will be more valuable to data brokers.
True. This is why the AdNauseam extension doesn't simply "hide" ads, but it goes out of its way to actually simulate clicks for ALL ads, causing algorithms to be unable to more accurately profile you and making the pay-per-click model fall on its face. If everyone did that, advertisers would have to pay for completely meaningless clicks making it no longer worth it to advertise this way.
Though it's still not a solution to privacy, since it still gives some insight on your tastes by allowing them to know what websites do you frequently visit.
Sad. I did not know that.
Although, to be honest, I was sort of expecting it would happen sooner or later. It did not look like the product was ready for mainstream users yet, and the devices at that price must have been tough to sell.
For anyone curious, this message from the CEO has more details: https://web.archive.org/web/20230822232437/https://mycroft.ai/blog/update-from-the-ceo-part-1/
If they were complaining about cronjobs being created (like the post says), then they must have known what cron is.
You can grow potatoes for political reasons too. Everything a human being does might be politically motivated, but that doesn't mean potatoes are political.
Anyone can take that same software, that was created as a particular political statement, and use it for the completelly opposite political reasons to make a completelly different political statement. Just the same way as many have used songs in contexts that are completelly politically opposite to what the original author of the song intended.
In the end, the only thing that's political is the goal/purpose/motivation of an action, not the result of the action. No piece of software/hardware/thing is political when you dettach the artist from the art and just see it for what it is, regardless of what the author might have wanted you to see it as.
No it is not, this is a myth. As you also can use free software on closed OS, which happens to be the standard
Why does it "happen to be the standard"?
Because people use it. At the end of the day, usage is what determines what's standard.
Whether a particular person can opt to go for something non-standard (eg. Linux) doesn't make what I said any less true.
And the problem is that the non-standard person can't expect the same level of support (eg. Linux drivers for obscure hardware).. because devs and companies won't care so much for any deviations from what's standard.
The point is that user generated or govt establish frameworks can b used as basis
That would be useless if people (both end users and web developers) don't use it.
The Mozilla Foundation created their own browser. Yet they are dying since they are getting abandoned by both web devs and end users. Creating your own does not solve the problem.
If web devs design for Chrome and Chrome adds Chrome-specific deviations from the standard, it's gonna be extremelly hard to keep up, which is what is happening with Firefox.. they can't keep up, they keep receiving reports of problems because websites are developed for Chrome.
This is already the case, you can choose not to use FLoC. Nothing changes here.
Yes, In there I was just describing how things work. As I see it.
Please learn the difference between Browser engine and web standards, nonsense you talk here
Web standards are just a set of rules that hipothetically Browser engines follow.
In practice, however, no browser engine actually follows the standard 100%, since they all have their very own extensions or try different optimizations that result in differences of implementation.. Google keeps adding their own spin on things at a pace that is hard to keep up for any other browser.
If it were possible for web standards to be really, truly, and fully respected, then indeed it wouldn't matter what browser you use. But that's not what the reality is. There are websites that work and look different in Chrome than in Firefox.
Nonsense video, underlying problem is monopolies and private companies who develop the standards, not what browser you use.
It's the other way around. Which browser you use is what directly determines whether monopoly and private companies develop the standard you use.
You could write a standard independently of those companies, but then if everyone chooses to use browser engines from companies that don't follow it, what's the point?
If everyone uses a particular browser then whatever that browser implements becomes the standard. It's all about what browser you use.
If the standards are fully open, transparent and not concerning then it would make no difference if you use chrome and firefox because everyone would use same basis.
If what you want is everyone using the same basis, then what you need is to get everyone to use the same browser engine (which is what is happening already).
However, focusing on that is likely to not result in it being "fully open" as long as the popular browsers are not interested in openness (in particular with a MIT-licensed basis that is allowed to be privately altered, extended and corrupted in proprietary forks by those popular browsers who don't have to be "transparent" on what exactly they changed).
If what you want is for it to be "fully open", then you'd want people to be more careful and choose a browser with a "fully open" basis, instead of using whatever is more popular. It's still all about what browser you use.
Note that "secrecy" and "privacy" are often understood in Security lingo as different things. One protects confidentiality, the other one protects anonymity.
It's possible to have one and not the other...
You can have a very private system through onion routing but have the contents of the messages exchanged be in plaintext, open to the public. Nobody will be able to know the one who wrote the message was you. But they can see the message. (then there is privacy, but not secrecy).
Or you can have very strongly encrypted communications (say HTTPS) but have the DNS exchanges (or the TLS handshake, or the IP addresses) be in the clear, so people in the middle (eg. your ISP.. or your workplace tech guys) can know exactly that the packages are sent by you and where you sent them, even if their content is encrypted. They can know which service you tried to access to, for how long and how many times (so you have secrecy, but not privacy).